A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON UNDERINVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL R&D



far larger portfolio of profitable agricultural R&D investment opportunities than the developing
countries have. Their optimal R&D intensity (i.e., public agricultural research expenditures as a
percentage of AgGDP) stands at 2.8%, compared to 1.0% for developing countries (figure 5b).

A differentiation of the R&D opportunity curve for developing countries by regions is
presented in figure 5c. Although the actual R&D intensity for all three regions clusters around 0.5%,
their estimated optimal R&D intensity ratios differ quite significantly: 0.9% for Africa; 0.6% for Asia;
and 2.0% for Latin America. The robustness of these latter estimates is rather weak given the small
number of rate-of-return observations per region. Nevertheless, it illustrates how, with sufficiently
good rate-of-return data, some far-reaching conclusions regarding underinvestment in agricultural
R&D could be derived.

In figure 5d, the R&D opportunity curves have been plotted for two different time periods.
The results of the rate-of-return studies published in and before 1985 have been related to the
expenditure level of 1961-65, while those published after 1985 are related to the expenditure level of
1981-85. The figure shows how, for both developed and developing countries, the R&D opportunity
curve has shifted outward. If the R&D opportunity curve had not changed, the increase in R&D
spending would have reduced the implicit cut-off rate and, hence, the underinvestment gap. For
developing countries, this would have brought the cut-off rate close to 25%, while for developed
countries the cut-off rate would have dropped below zero.

An implicit assumption frequently made in the literature as well as in policy advice is that the
R&D opportunity curve is the same across countries and over time. For example, the recommendation
made by the World Bank that developing countries should invest 2% of their AgGDP in agricultural
R&D by 1990 (World Bank 1981) is based on this assumption. The developed-country investment
level of the early 1980s is taken as the target, and assuming that all countries are on the same curve,
closing the underinvestment gap is a matter of moving along a fixed curve. If the advice had been
followed, developing countries would have overinvested in agricultural R&D by quite a margin. The
results of the current analysis suggests that for 1981-85 the optimal investment level for developing
countries was about 1.0% (rather than the actual 0.4%) and that for developed countries, it was about
2.8% (rather than the actual 2.0%). It is important to realize that even at modest investment levels,

19



More intriguing information

1. Investment and Interest Rate Policy in the Open Economy
2. Firm Closure, Financial Losses and the Consequences for an Entrepreneurial Restart
3. The technological mediation of mathematics and its learning
4. Imperfect competition and congestion in the City
5. Bird’s Eye View to Indonesian Mass Conflict Revisiting the Fact of Self-Organized Criticality
6. IMPROVING THE UNIVERSITY'S PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC POLICY EDUCATION
7. The name is absent
8. On the estimation of hospital cost: the approach
9. PROPOSED IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM & FARM LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES
10. The name is absent
11. IMMIGRATION POLICY AND THE AGRICULTURAL LABOR MARKET: THE EFFECT ON JOB DURATION
12. The Dictator and the Parties A Study on Policy Co-operation in Mineral Economies
13. Knowledge and Learning in Complex Urban Renewal Projects; Towards a Process Design
14. Distribution of aggregate income in Portugal from 1995 to 2000 within a SAM (Social Accounting Matrix) framework. Modeling the household sector
15. Demographic Features, Beliefs And Socio-Psychological Impact Of Acne Vulgaris Among Its Sufferers In Two Towns In Nigeria
16. The problem of anglophone squint
17. Campanile Orchestra
18. The name is absent
19. Iconic memory or icon?
20. Skill and work experience in the European knowledge economy